Right versus left radial artery access for coronary procedures: an international collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis including 5 randomized trials and 3210 patients

BACKGROUND: Radial artery access is a mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease. However, there is uncertainty on the comparison of right versus left radial access for coronary procedures. We thus undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing right versus left radial access for coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures. METHODS: Pertinent studies were searched in CENTRAL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Scopus, together with international conference proceedings. Randomized trials comparing right versus left radial (or ulnar) access for coronary diagnostic or interventional procedures were included. Risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were computed to generate point estimates (95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: A total of 5 trials (3210 patients) were included. No overall significant differences were found comparing right versus left radial access in terms of procedural time (WMD=0.99 [-0.53; 2.51]min, p=0.20), contrast use (WMD=1.71 [-1.32; 4.74]mL, p=0.27), fluoroscopy time (WMD=-35.79 [-3.54; 75.12]s, p=0.07) or any major complication (RR=2.00 [0.75; 5.31], p=0.49). However, right radial access was fraught with a significantly higher risk of failure leading to cross-over to femoral access (RR=1.65 [1.18; 2.30], p=0.003) in comparison to left radial access. CONCLUSIONS: Right and left radial accesses appear largely similar in their overall procedural and clinical performance during transradial diagnostic or interventional procedures. Nonetheless, left radial access can be recommended especially during the learning curve phase to reduce femoral cross-overs

Randomized comparison of operator radiation exposure comparing transradial and transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary procedures: Rationale and design of the minimizing adverse haemorrhagic events by TRansradial access site and systemic implementation of angioX - RAdiation Dose study (RAD-MATRIX)

Background: Radiation absorbed by interventional cardiologists is a frequently under-evaluated important issue. Aim is to compare radiation dose absorbed by interventional cardiologists during percutaneous coronary procedures for acute coronary syndromes comparing transradial and transfemoral access. Methods: The randomized multicentre MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX) trial has been designed to compare the clinical outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes treated invasively according to the access site (transfemoral vs. transradial) and to the anticoagulant therapy (bivalirudin vs. heparin). Selected experienced interventional cardiologists involved in this study have been equipped with dedicated thermoluminescent dosimeters to evaluate the radiation dose absorbed during transfemoral or right transradial or left transradial access. For each access we evaluate the radiation dose absorbed at wrist, at thorax and at eye level. Consequently the operator is equipped with three sets (transfemoral, right transradial or left transradial access) of three different dosimeters (wrist, thorax and eye dosimet

Transradial approach in the catheterization laboratory: Pros/cons and suggestions for successful implementation

In the last decade the radial access use in the catheterization laboratory has sensibly grown up worldwide. From an initial sporadic use as alternative but challenging vascular approach, radial artery is today utilized by default for percutaneous procedures in many centers. The tangible interest in the transradial approach is also testified by increasing presence of specific sessions in the main interventional meetings and by continuous development of dedicated catheters and ancillary devices by manufacturers. In this review we describe the anatomical characteristics and the technical aspects related to transradial procedure underlying its pros/cons in opposition to femoral access. We also point up practical instructions trying to resolve the main concerns related to an extensive use of radial approach in catheterization laboratory, such as increased operator's discomfort, higher radiation exposure, safety and feasibility for complex high-risk procedures